Basic Research on the Cell – review of “Life at the below-Cell level: The Hidden History of a
Fundamental Revolution in Biology” – book
review.
Perry A. Chapdelaine

Gilbert Ling, PhD, without doubt one of the most brilliant scientists in the last
century, describes, in his latest book, Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level: The
Hidden History of a Fundamental Revolution in Biology, exactly that: the hidden
history of how the current paradigm for the structure and functioning of the cell-
-that basic unit of all living creatures--has persisted for a half-century, despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And that evidence, in great part, stems
from the critical experiments conducted by Dr. Ling and his coworkers, and the
theoretical models developed by Dr. Ling. Dr. Ling does not castigate those of
lesser acumen who made crucial mistakes that have continued on for the last
several decades. Rather, he explains where the errors occurred, the technologies
that had to be developed before the conflicting issues could be resolved, and the
many experiments that--independent of his theories--gave the death knell to the
membrane theory with its myriad pumps, and confirmed his own theories. He
does not mince words, however, when it comes to his well-thought out
conclusions. For instance: "The popular belief that life can only occur in whole
cells is wrong and...protoplasm, existing in the living state, is the more
fundamental unit of life" (pg. 267) is certain to attract attention from those who
believe otherwise. (Also see Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, 3rd
Ed., Lida H. Mattman, Ph.D., CRC Press LLC, ISBN: 0-8493-8767-1).

Barrier Between Basic Research and Applied Clinical Practices
John W. Campbell, Jr. (who received the rare honor of having a crater on the
moon named after him), as editor of a leading science fiction magazine and a
fantasy magazine, an accomplished story-teller in two distinct styles, a key
developer of modern-day science fiction, and a patient teacher to many wellknown
writers, was foremost a persuasive essayist on every subject, forcing the
rethinking of accepted ideas and the challenging of pet themes. There is a
breakdown, he once argued, between the research of medicine and the practice
of medicine. The two fields simply don't communicate with one another. No
matter how important or grand are the discoveries of basic research, there is no
one to communicate these findings and treatment implications to those
responsible for healing humans.

An example of this communication breakdown between basic research and
clinical practice can be seen in the case of diabetes. In 1977 Rosalyn S. Yalow
shared one-half of the Nobel Prize with Roger C.L. Guillemin and Andrew V.
Schally. Diabetes was considered due to failure of the pancreas cells to produce
sufficient insulin to enable the muscle and liver cells to store sugar in them. The
Nobel Laureates showed that the pancreas produces either normal or excessive
amounts of insulin in diabetics. Only a few physicians, such as William R.
Philpott, MD, Jennifer Daniels, MD, and others, have followed through from this
extremely important finding, accepting that diabetes is, in fact, inactivation or
blocking of the normally formed insulin by some substance in the body. Usually,
this substance can be identified as a product of an allergic reaction from some
commonly consumed foods. When the foods are removed from the diet, the
swollen beta cells in the pancreas that have inhibited release of insulin return to
normal, and so the diabetes disappears as thousands of patients have
discovered with the help of Dr. Philpott, and some other physicians. Meanwhile,
the larger proportion of clinical physicians subscribe to drug-oriented alleviation
of the symptoms, to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies, related industries,
and (indirectly) to themselves.

Nowhere is the communication breakdown between basic research and clinical
practice more evident than in the continuing futile attempts to conquer cancer.
More than 50 years of "the war against cancer" has resulted in thousands of
munificent research grants. These, in turn, have produced millions of detailed
reports signifying, for the most part, absolutely nothing so far as eliminating
cancer.

Clinical successes for diabetes or cancer are not the only medical defaults that
are limited by poor communication between basic researchers and clinicians.
Almost every medical specialty suffers from similar myopia, as initially expressed
by John W Campbell, Jr. To mention briefly two more, consider blood circulation
problems--for which the overwhelming evidence is that EDTA chelation therapy
will simply and effectively clear up 80% of peripheral circulation problems; or
rheumatoid arthritis--for which symptomatic relief breeds a multi-million dollar
empire, using trial and error drugs.